On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 03:14:09PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote: > On 07/01/2014 01:35 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 02:47:04PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote: > >>In virtualized environment there are mainly three problems > >>related to spinlocks that affects performance. > >>1. LHP (lock holder preemption) > >>2. Lock Waiter Preemption (LWP) > >>3. Starvation/fairness > >> > >>Though Ticketlocks solve fairness problem it worsens LWP, LHP problems. Though > >>pv-ticketlocks tried to address these problems we can further improve at the > >> cost of relaxed fairness. The following patch tries to achieve that by grouping > >>(batched) ticketlocks. > > > >And here I stop reading and ignore this patch, right? > > > >Why should I look at this? > > > > For baremetal we continue to have 'fully fair ticketlock' with this patch > series. > But but but, we're looking at removing ticket locks. So why do we want to invest in them now? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
